Private chat linkfilter whitelist?

[Chicago Ted]

So, I've been using the steam friend chat as the primary means of messaging my friends for about a decade now, ever since The Orange Box. However, recently the link-filtering in the private chat has kicked it up a notch and gone full LINK REMOVED on ♥♥♥♥♥ image/webm links, which is significantly disrupting. It used to do the ol' 'this isn't an official steam site" click-through thing which was annoying, but tolerable, but now we have to do trash like add spaces or line breaks and copy and paste links like we're ♥♥♥♥in' scamming each other. Is there any way to whitelist domains on the user-end so that it doesn't LINK REMOVED domains I know are trustworthy?

[Zekiran]

Nope.

If you want to send rude pictures and viruses to your friends in chat, use a different chat client. Steam doesn't want to be anywhere near responsible for that.

[Chicago Ted]

Viruses, sure, that's understandable to block. Which is why I wouldn't complain about them blocking file lockers like mediafire or google drive, although I know if they do since I link dropbox files occasionally. However, I'm complaining about them blocking image hosting. It's not like jpegs or pngs will harm anything. It's not like they block imgur or twitter, after all.

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

I think Killah just put the "4" sites into the word filter, downgrading it from being in the blacklist.

http://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/7/1480982338947487869/#c1480982338965607969

[Chicago Ted]

No_OneHere님이 먼저 게시:

Using Steam chat for "adult conversations" is like using Club Penguin for that, doesn't work. Steam has to cater to its age restriction of 13 years on up at least at some points.

I don't see why you're assuming it's porn or other adult content. I said "private" to indicate that it was direct messaging through the friends list, rather than, say, group chat or forum-posting, where heavier content-censorship is understandable. Most of what I link to on any of the 'chans is just anime, gaming, or military related garbage anyway.

On top of that people getting their PCs infected with all kinds of stuff through stupid links and dropbox downloads and then needing support to get their accounts back costs a lot of money, Valves money.

So you're arguing for more link-removal? Dropbox and Google Drive aren't blocked, after all, and you can host and link far more infectious file types through those than you can with image boards.

I guess to give them your skype/other programm name, right?

The reason we've used steam as a primary communication method for something like ten years now is that is of course, convenient. Integrated with all games, something we've always got running.

While I acknowledge that Valve has a financial interest in protecting its users even from links sent from friends, given account takeovers are a thing, I do not agree that falsely flagging a popular image board as a malware vector is the way to go about it, as it trains users to accept mutilated links that come from friends. While the ol' scammy workarounds of "[domain] . com" and "[domain] DOT com" normally do not warrant even a glance to know that they shouldn't be entered, that might change if Steam starts requiring it to share pictures of cute doggos.

[Chicago Ted]

No_OneHere님이 먼저 게시:

Chicago Ted님이 먼저 게시:

I don't see why you're assuming it's porn or other adult content.

I am assuming that, because of all the years I am on Steam, I had about 15 URLs censored and all of them were in fact adult content or non official resellers.

Bah, this is why I hate heavy-handed censorship. I swear I remember something that got around the heart wordfilter and allowed you to see what was actually written. But no, it is not a site that focuses on pornography, just a popular image board. While it is true that the same domain does host some pornography, that doesn't mean it's a porn site. Unless you'd call other similar sites such as twitter, reddit, or imgur porn sites.

cSg|mc-Hotsauce님이 먼저 게시:

I think Killah just put the "4" sites into the word filter, downgrading it from being in the blacklist.

Oh, well, good. Do you have any idea of about how long this kind of thing takes to go into effect?

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

It should be ok to use the "4" sites in the chat window right now. Try it.

It is coming up as ♥ on the forums. That means it is only filtered and not blacklisted.

[Chicago Ted]

cSg|mc-Hotsauce님이 먼저 게시:

It should be ok to use the "4" sites in the chat window right now. Try it.

It is coming up as ♥ on the forums. That means it is only filtered and not blacklisted.

I'm still getting the "Link Blocked!" page when a click a link I've sent, which is what happened when they were getting removed. I can't test if I can receive the links yet because nobody's online. [Edit: Seven hours after Killah made that post, 2+2Chan links are still removed from friend chat] Although, if I close and reopen a chat window it shows that it's removing the links still. Well, hopefully it'll be sorted out before long.

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

That sucks. You can ask Killah about it on his profile if you want. I'm sure he wouldn't mind.

[Marcy]

Make the filter a setting you can turn off that's on by default.

Done.

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

Vertisea님이 먼저 게시:

Make the filter a setting you can turn off that's on by default.

Done.

http://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/12/492378265882262914/#c1480982971156892484

[Marcy]

cSg|mc-Hotsauce님이 먼저 게시:

Vertisea님이 먼저 게시:

Make the filter a setting you can turn off that's on by default.

Done.

http://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/12/492378265882262914/#c1480982971156892484

:qr:

I'm talking about the private chat filter for links. I can judge for myself whether a link is safe or not, I don't need some algorithm doing it for me.

[ReBoot]

Vertisea님이 먼저 게시:

cSg|mc-Hotsauce님이 먼저 게시:

http://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/12/492378265882262914/#c1480982971156892484

:qr:

I'm talking about the private chat filter for links. I can judge for myself whether a link is safe or not, I don't need some algorithm doing it for me.

You can. Almost everyone else can't. See?

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

There is a whitelist and a blacklist. The whitelisted one are not filtered in the chat window as I linked in post #4.

Blacklisted will never be allowed to show anywhere.

[Marcy]

ReBoot님이 먼저 게시:

Vertisea님이 먼저 게시:

I'm talking about the private chat filter for links. I can judge for myself whether a link is safe or not, I don't need some algorithm doing it for me.

You can. Almost everyone else can't. See?

That's why it should be an option that's hard to reach and cumbersome to disable.

Not to mention, it's not that hard to not be stupid. If you don't trust something, don't click it, period.

Then again I know how stupid people can be because all the computers I had to reformat all belong to people who do the exact opposite of what I just said.

[ReBoot]

Vertisea님이 먼저 게시:

ReBoot님이 먼저 게시:

You can. Almost everyone else can't. See?

That's why it should be an option that's hard to reach and cumbersome to disable.

No, there shouldn't. Don't get me wrong, I'd love me a checkbox "I am not a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ idiot. I know better than to trust strangers, I know better than to install malware, now take the kids gloves off!" There are two problems with this checkbox.
1. Idiots tend to be too dumb to realize they're idiots. They'll check the checkbox genuinely thinking it applies to them.
2. Idiots tend to be too dumb to understand what they just read. Or to read stuff at all. They'll check the checkbox because some idiot friend said "Hey bruh, check dat shizzle to get rid of all that crap annoyance on Steam". Or because some Reddit guide told them to do so, for the same reason.

Vertisea님이 먼저 게시:

Not to mention, it's not that hard to not be stupid. If you don't trust something, don't click it, period.

Oh, it is hard. I personally don't get what's so hard about reading and looking up technical terms one doesn't understand, but people can't do that. I don't know why.

Vertisea님이 먼저 게시:

Then again I know how stupid people can be because all the computers I had to reformat all belong to people who do the exact opposite of what I just said.

Let's agree on that!

PS: There's historical precedence for idiots being idiots. Or for idiots refusing to take responsibility, a while ago, Steam guard via email (mobile app didn't exist) was optional and there was a checkbox with a description like "Let me trade without that bloody confirmation, but I'll take full responsibility should my items get stolen". Do you want to guess if there were oceans of threads with "I checked the checkbox and my items got stolen, I want Valve to return them"?